Stuart Hameroff - Does Consciousness Cause the Cosmos?

Some claim consciousness, our inner awareness, is part of a 'cosmic consciousness'. Not only is consciousness the deepest reality, but also it brought into existence the totality of reality. This would mean that mind, the mental, is fundamental and primary, while the entire physical universe is derivative and secondary.

[xtraflo]

This guy is definately on to something. A lot of what he's talking about does seem to work, physically..

[sweetchinmusic]

As Stuart said, the first discussions on consciousness were written down in the Vedas (Vedantic view) and Upanishads, the ancient Hindu texts, believed to be written in ancient India around 3000 BC. Deepak takes all his theories from there (without giving credit to his source though 😁)

[tunahelpa]

Consider the possibility that consciousness is fundamental - that it did not evolve. If it has always been there, this raises the possibility that organisms evolved to present representations of the world to their own personal piece of consciousness - that evolving organisms worked with their inherent bit of consciousness in order to survive.
This view would say that consciousness IS physical, but that it exists independent of any organism, just as air, water, and rocks exist independent of life.

[squamish]

I love that actual scientists and even a Nobel Prize winner are talking like this, leaving the domain of philosophy. It's about time the taboo was broken.

[Timge]

We should listen to everyone because the truth is we dont know

[mrnessss]

Man these two guys have great conversations

[david]

Stuart, it is possible your anaesthetics disable the brain and thus consciousness cannot access it during the procedure. NDEs clearly indicate that consciousness is somehow distinct from the brain; and under certain conditions (which we do not understand) can continue to function with awareness outside the body and even while the body is apparently dead - flatlined etc.

[j.adanin]

I LOVE science, but I feel it lacks the flexibility to think beyone it's own prejudices.

[toomanydonuts]

I think it's telling that in the 100 years since the Copenhagen interpretation came out, there haven't been any significant changes/improvements to it. It remains the most popular and widely used interpretation. It is the single most successful theory in the history of science. It has stood the test of time because it was produced by some of the greatest minds in history. It has withstood every attempt to be co-opted by a materialist interpretation. The materialists just don't get it.




Yes, Max Plank meant it when he said, "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

To be clear, he also said the following:




"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. - Max Planck."




But Max is not an isolated case among the fathers of quantum mechanics. There are other brilliant minds that our less talented proponents of naive realism have to contend with.



Neils Bohr




Neils Bohr was an avid reader of the Vedic texts and observed that their experiments in quantum physics were consistent with what he had read in the Vedas. Here is a sampling of his wisdom:


"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real."


"Nothing exists until it is measured."


"When we measure something we are forcing an undetermined, undefined world to assume an experimental value. We are not measuring the world, we are creating it."


"Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems ."



Erwin Schrödinger:




Erwin Schrödinger, in speaking of a universe in which particles are represented by wave functions, said, “The unity and continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of wave mechanics. This is entirely consistent with the Vedanta concept of All in One.”


"Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind..."


"Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe."



"There is no kind of framework within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply something we construct because of the temporal plurality of individuals, but it is a false construction The only solution to this conflict insofar as any is
available to us at all lies in the ancient wisdom of the Upanishad."


Consciousness cannot be counted for in physical terms, for consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else. Quantum physics reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Multiplicity is only apparent; in truth;
there is only one mind. — Erwin Schrodinger


"The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence."




David Bohm:




David Bohm was an American theoretical physicist who was once described by Einstein as his intellectual successor, created perhaps the second most popular interpretation of quantum mechanics. He was a radical spiritual activist. In his master work, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he states, "In principle this reality is one unbroken whole, including the entire universe with all its ‘fields’ and ‘particles.’" and “To begin with undivided wholeness means, however, that we must drop the mechanistic order.”



Conclusion:



I think it is relevant to ponder the significance of what our brilliant forebears have to say, and ask why 100 years of materialist counter-proposals have failed to offer an intelligent reductionist explanation for quantum mechanics, or any serious counter-proposal to overturn the primacy of consciousness. But they're still trying. They say a materialist world view solution is just around the corner, i.e., information science theory, etc. Maybe it's just time for them to discard their assumptions of reality.

[Bluebell_]

Consciousness does not exist OUTSIDE the physical world. Instead, the "physical world" is a subset of "transcendent consciousness" and therefore exists WITHIN consciousness.

[tunahelpa]

Interesting idea. What's all this about Planck scale? I'll have to research it. Does spacetime consist of chunks at the Planck scale? Fascinating. And the idea that consciousness is in every chunk of that spacetime is But then, so is the idea that consciousness is emergent. In fact, consciousness in any form for any reason is mind-bending!

[aphysique]

Hameroff & Tom Campbell, make it happen!!

[taja]

Some scientists (not science) are fighting a losing battle against themselves as they attempt to manipulate findings to fit the models that they "believe" to be correct. It is why sadly, but factually, science/understanding often evolves in peaks after the death of the dominate personalities and egos in the field, then it plateaus for a while as the new paradigm plays out. Of course there are many rogue mavericks who really do go against the mainstream and they, for me are by far the most exciting to follow... personally I think Stuart (and of course Roger) are ahead of the game.

[johnnyb]

I think Stuart Hameroff is great, but I disagree with him when he said Vedanta is dualist. As I understand it, Vedanta takes the view that consciousness is all there is, so Vedanta can't be dualistic.

[jackpullen]

I am reading, " The Fractal Brain Theory " by Wai H. Tsang. I find it a good informative book that addresses Theories on brain, AI, Functional Genomics, Ontogenesis and Evolution.So far, i have only found one page where he brings up Penrose and Hameroff and i find it kind of a let down because it's plain to see how their working theories go hand in hand together along with Carlo Rovelli's Loop Quantum Gravity and Seth Lloyd's Time Dilation Theories. All these men of science have been working for the most part separately in differing fields and some have come together, Penrose/Hameroff, Tsang went to a conference and was accepted for his ideas on the fractal nature of the brains functioning. Dr. Rovelli's L.Q.G. Theory explains spin fold networks describing spacetime as a sea of foam at Planck scale where all information that will ever exists is in its simplest form " Proto Consciousness ", Bits. I see this spacetime quantum field as the cloud is to our computers and our brains are as to spacetime. The DP ORCH O.R. process in our brains connects to the spacetime quantum field through entanglement in exchanging information forward and backwards in time effecting causation through time loops as Seth Lloyd's theory suggests. Our current Quantum Computers are believed to be processing information beyond our know universe in other dimensions to solve complex equations.If you consider the Cuttle Fish which lives a mere two years, how could it possibly be so intelligent? Hive mind, Quantum Entanglement, intelligence stored in Genes? They display thousands of patterns of light in motion and timings. Could we ever hope to learn their language? Thanks, enjoyed video!

[anibalbocagolosa]

What he proposes is also outside of science.

[YousefBenIsreal]

"if you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left over has to be true" mic 🎤 drop

[ericday]

Wow, the interviewer looked right at this guy and said, that is ridiculous. Good for him.

[lionharpmusic]

I don't get this. Descartes just dumped the "problem" area - the "mechanism" for lack of a better term - for the interaction between the mind and body in something he thought was very small - namely the pineal gland. But just placing the problem in something small doesn't get us any closer to understanding the mechanism/explanation - it just hides it under the rug. Isn't just dumping the "mechanisms" into the plank scale the same maneuver Descartes tried (and failed)?

[Sfbaytech]

I don’t know but I think the fact we didn’t have consciousness before we were born and it goes away when we die would indicate it’s not fundamental